>> up next, senator james inhofe , republican from oklahoma and wrecking member of the senate environment and public works committee questioning climate change. senator inhofe discusses his book in response to viewers on the morning program washington journal. this is about 45 minutes. >> and on this friday morning we are pleased to welcome back towe our table senator james inhofe,. republican of oklahoma. the top republican on the environment and public works committee in the senate and author of the new book the greatest hoax of the global wel tag conspiracy to is your future. talk about all that and more. thank you for being here. let's set with oil prices. $110 on the pipeline explosion report denied by the saudis. the president in new hampshire talks about yesterday about whae gas prices and the amount of oii we drill at home does not set the price of gas on its own because oil is bought annd sold on the market.
just like last year, causing thi price of world to rise, the ie biggest thing is instability ine >>e middle east. do you agree?: >> guest: no.ing >> host: what is affecting guest: of >> guest: millions of people watching this right now, and there is not what he did not di learn in elementary school the basics of supply and demand. here we are in the united states of america with the largest recb recoverable reserves in coal,col oil, and gas of any country in the world. we have enough gas right now. of course it is increasing every day. we could be -- we would have 90h years of gas just from us. sixty years of oil. we could take care of. the problem is this presidentid has spent four years now doinged everything he can to attack tock fossil fuels. he's doing everything he can to stop it. jpi and that's just the pipeline. everyone knows about that. hydraulic fracturing, for example. i happen to be in a state withan the first hydraulic fracturing
job was in 1949, and there hasig never been a confirmed case of ground water contamination from a dollar fracturing. but -- so he makes a statement, oh, we are going to try to integrate natural-gas developing here. then at the same time he is trying to attack hydraulictr fracturing. you can't get any gas and oil out without using hydraulic fracturing. so this attack is out there. and at least be honest about it. he's admitting it. he wants to end the fossil fuels.athapp look what's just happened and yesterday in the day before.th steven chu, the secretary of energy, he came out and reaffd reaffirmed what he said in 2008 he still believes.e ill and that is they want to halfhae the price of gas up around comparable to that there sevenu, or $8 a gallon, and they're getting up there. so this is by design that they're doing that.
you know, mind-boggling. people is smarter than that. in that.e >> host: in that same speechine. obama calls again for repeal of oil industry subsidies.eaof >> guest: they talk about subsidies. a lot of these things to all fos oiample, manufacturers, deductions, all other dtion not jucturers have this. is not just the oil and gas industry and if they want to take 1988 to make it more sense so i think he's making a mistake. he's got, you know, several months try cover from this thing, but he is clearly the one who is responsible for the high place of gas at the pumps. >> on the x.l. keystone pipeline, a note in politico changed the route of the pipeline to get keystone built and there's word that a portion of the pipeline will begin construction. can you explain what's happening? >> yes.
this is something that the president as he's doing right now in the keystone could be but a little ways of west. that's a major intersection of the pipelines that come through there. so the pipe going from cushing is the part the president doesn't -- he isn't stop that portion. >> because it doesn't cross outside the u.s. borders and the over one does? >> yes. but the problem with that is, yes, we -- that will get rid of the some -- you can't have a pipeline going in one direction and accomplish anything. i think the greatest fall sip and the whole argument, he was catering to some of the far left environmentists in nebraska. now berdych.
they stop this because he foe permission -- guest: it's not going to stop whether or not they are drilling as if there's some reason to stop drilling up in there. host: from this section the white house has endorsed it. is that correct? guest: doesn't matter. he can't stop it. he makes it sound like he's being pro gas and oil. he's endorsing it, i mean the people there are if understandably if guest: and for the 2012 campaign? guest: i think so.
host: and oil and gas prices are so of the things you discuss. you've long been a critic of those who are advocates of environmental policies which are related to climate change or global warming. the word hoax has a lot of con me toations. generally that it's intentional and perhaps with financial gain behind it. what is your thesis here? what are you saying? the definition of hoax? guest: what i like to use. i've got it right here. yes. hoax is something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication. that fits it pretty well, i think. what you have, sunes, with the whole idea of the hoax is there are people lined up to do very well, financially, and in fact, i have several quotes by
scientists who used to be on the other side. dempsey. i'm trying to remember his first name. anyway, the one that was -- i've got it right here. well, those individuals in the u.k., he was the scientist marching on the streets and carrying the flag of global warming. after looking at this and how they rigged the science, he changed and now he's on the other side of the issue. from israel a young scientists who was one of the strong supporters of the aleft armist he is a top scientist. he was the leader of that momentum his statement is, it's all about money. host: and do you believe that the? guest: yes. i think he's right.
i'll take his word for it. it wasn't long ago in "the new york times" that they said, perhaps al gore will be the first environmental billionaire. that's with a b. and of course we had been reading about that for a long time. there's a lot of money involved in this thing, you know that. "martha" host: you you belief people who are very public advocates are making it up? >> i think most of them are people who honestly -- i tell you something funny, susan. back when this thing first started with the can i oato treaty, everyone at that time, and i was just a casual observer. everyone stayed man made gases are causing catastrophic global warming. i thought maybe it was true. i didn't pay that much attention to it until they came out with the cost of this thing.
the wharton school. wharton economy metrics forecast. it stayed cost of this for the united states for us would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. then m.i.t. and ores came in, c.r.a. and they all kind of agreed. the frame has been between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. then i went back and recalled the the largest tax increase. it was the clinton-gore tax increase. this would be 10 times that amount for my state of oklahoma and the -- susan, our phones rang off the hook, people calling in. scientists calling in on how
they were rejected. for our listeners and viewers, this thing started with the united nations. with this -- fast forward to 1992 is when they had the earth summit. now they are going to have the earth summit, plus 20. that's going to take place in rio, i think. the we spent a lot of time going back and when the scientists started to come in and saying they trashed the science, then of course, i'll always remember. you used of this, remember when
and obama and pelosi and hillary clinton and i think john cary and i came over, and right before i left, we were in the eff -- the fact that shed that picture of my 20 kids and grandkids on her wall. so yes, i had to like her. she said can i ask you a question? i said madam director, i have a feeling that as soon as i leave town you will have an endangerment training. and -- it was poetic justice,
not after a month or week. it was hours after that that the climate information came down. over there, the u.k. guardian and places in europe were calling it the worst embarrassment and scientist -- scientific dallas they had seen eand then it's been pretty well shot down. and they are moving forward with regulation. and that regulation would be far more than $300 billion to $400 billion. this would be based on the clean air act. the clean air act talks about emissions of 250tons a year. so they would be regulating anyone 250 puns, to so they would have just regulated the
major manufacturers and some of the refineries. this would be every chump, school, hospital in america would be regulated. and that cost would be far greater than $300 billion to $4 in. a yea. so it's not that fofe host: -- host: ok. so i've asked people on facebook to send questions for you overnight. we also have twitter and phone calls. ian on facebook says i believe global warming is scientifically proved. how much of it is caused by humans is e --
guest: here's the thing. we are right now doing everything we can. the amount of money we're spending on research /renewables. in fact it was greater than with the previous administration, the clinton administration. so that's going on, the research. i can't disagree with the lady who said but you've got to run this machine auld america in the of now pool for example is used to -- then of course you've got gas and oil. if you pull that away, there isn't enough energy to thrun country. and what's going to happen? i suggest to her that -- in fact let me just put it this way -- going back to the
administration of the e.p.a., i asked her a question at one of our hearings, and that's televised. i said if we were to pass that, at the time it was, -- would this reduce the c.o. 2 emissions worldwide? she said no, because the problem is not here. in the china and other places where they don't have emissions. i eff -- guest: for example, we have not put any new coal fair to generating plants in the united states. they are cranking out three a week in china. so this is the problem we have. back to the lady's question.
if they'll go back and look, the same people, the same people who are saying now that global warming is causing catastrophic warming -- they were the ones in 1975 that were saying another ice age is coming. let me just mention one thing, and of from 198 then from 19 25-1945 was a warming period. then from 1945-1975 was a cooling time. the time where there was more emissions coming out was world war ii. around 1945. but that was of effeff --
host: this is sal, who is a democrat. caller: how are you this morning? host: great. caller: i know this sounds crazy but i have an idea how to get the gas prices back down to where they were. i don't think i can defend on the government, because there's nothing they can do. we have to pick one company. stop protesting, they don't have a choice. i think people can get gas back down below $3 gallons. because -- we've hurdled this. we know feoff -- caller: with the gas prices, if i can bring up one point, i
notice the food prices have gone sky high. a gallon of milk costs $5 a gallon. i don't buy get to milk but swiss cheese goes for almost $9 a pound. i'm about to lose my house because i can't afford to pay my taxes and now i can't afford the gas. how are people supposed to go out and look for a job? host: let me jump in there. guest: i think he makes a good point. gas prices go up, everything else goes up, too. i was having a hard time hearing everything he said. it doesn't happen in a vacuum. he suggested pp -- guest: based on the -- on them
rising prices. host: on twitter it's asked will the keystone pipeline oil remain in america or be sold on the world market? guest: well, first of all, it will be used in the united states, because that comes from alberta and would come down two different sources. ultimately those sources meet in cushing, oklahoma in my state. some of that will be going towards houston towards port arthur, texas, but it will be used in texas. host: you're on with the senator. caller: yes. it seems like no one believes in global warming now, so senator, why did you write the book? guest: i didn't hear. host: people don't believe in global warming anymore, so why did you of 34% of them.
but it was 78% just a few years ago, so people have kind of caught on and realized that it's not -- you know, it's not what it was before. but the reason the book is necessary is that if obama is defeated, it's not going to go away. you've got money behind this. you've got move on.org and the hollywood elite. so the book goes into the future. it's not going to stop because people think it's no longer -- host: because those people believe the science? guest: who? i know this people you just suggested. guest: well, all right. you get into the issue of the liberals and the conserves. i was asked the other night fighter i said, you know, they like control. hollywood wants to control your
lives. if you look at al gore, al gore, all during this thing. and we had him in for one of our hearings. i asked him a question. if you look at the last frame of his science fiction movie, it says are you willing to change the way that you live. so i asked him are you willing to change the way you live? he hem and hawed around and then finally said, no. they are wealthy liberals, and they want to run other people's lives. and they are out there. this issue is not going to go away. host: this call is for miami. independent senator, and you're on the air. hello, edward? we're not hearing any audio out here. edward, try again. host: we got you, thanks.
-- caller: with higher prices and true or not? all these republicans are lying, and my second scomment is it any wonder that the republican-led congress is up to no -- while you are naming post offices, people are losing their homes. that's my comment. thank you. guest: i can't hear. host: if we can please pull up the speaker, the senator can't hear through his earpiece. he said no wonder the g.o.p.-led congress has a low approval rating, they are renaming post offices while people are losing their houses. guest: well, what about the democrats? host: so what's your opinion of
congress? guest: there's always a low opinion of congress. genuinely-speaking, people say they don't have like the congress. right now they are looking at the president also and hi policies, and his numbers are not all that good either. host: this week in the senate with the vote over the contraception bill, it was very close, -- what do you think about that the vote and the sporns of discussing issues like that? guest: that was the blunt amendment and went down pretty much party lines. depends on who you were listening to. i think that's going to be, you know, somewhat of an issue. i don't think that's going to be as much of an issue as some of the personal freedoms that not too long ago with the catholic church and others, and again, the price of energy is
going to be of much greater -- in my opinion, an issue in the campaign in november. host: from pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. you know, senator, you are the most deceitful man in the united states senate. and to put this into realistic terms, the united states government is geoengineering global warming at all times of the day. you see artificial clouds being disseminated virtuely all over the united states. add to this, pennsylvania having the warmest winter in history on top of the fact that the government is geoengineering our climate now. add to the fact that not only is global warming taking place, but it is exponentially
increasing. now, if you republicans claim global warming isn't taking place, then why did you pass a bill providing authorization for the central intelligence agency to geoengineer our climate to offset global warming? in addition, the scientists off the coast of -- the russian scientists off the coast of sy bierria are seeing massive methane blooms. so when i came back from the caribbean, i saw the most abnormal weather i've ever seen in my life. i've been going down there for years. so you go on spreading the lies, senator, because that's guest: i'll cross him off my list for my re-election. let me just say that i have a long list and i will just go ahead and do one.
one of me most prominent scientist in russia said we should fear a deep temperature drop, not catastrophic global warming. we have gone through a -- through a period of 10 years that we have not had any increase and it started to get cooler and if you follow the trends that i mention admin ago, the warming periods that started after the cooling period between 45 and 75, again, it was historical. now, we have reached the point when at the turn of the century, it leveled off. it's starting to cool again now. and i would be glad to, you know, read some of -- of the quotes from the individual. u.n., this came from the ipcc. they said we're about to enter two decades during which the
temperature they admit is starting to cool again. so i'll just say that you know, the man from pittsburgh -- i would say two things. where was he in 1975 at the time that everyone said another ice age is coming? and secondly, he's from pennsylvania. the marsalis shale is new york and pennsylvania. it's not all out west. this is one of the huge, huge opportunities we have at natural gas and he ought to be concerned about that. i don't have the figures but it's one of the largest employers in the state of pennsylvania now. host: so here's a similar facebook posting. rick duly writes google melting polar caps then try to tell me it's a hoax. gleanland is actually turning green. people that are being paid with corporations are going to make up lies about it. they are idiots. a question for you, then. you don't disagree that there are changing atmosphere conditions but your on it is
with the original of those changes? guest: no, that's not correct. to melt greenland ice sheet would require temperatures to rise by 5.5 degrees celsius and remain there for 1,000 years. the ice sheet is growing at two inches a year. it's actually growing in greenland. i can remember. i'm also an aviation. i flew an airplane around the world and i remember coming through greenland and in talking to people there, they want to see the history about how things were really good when the vikings with, there and it was warmer. unfortunately for them, it's not getting warmer now. the study that nasa has, our study confirms that many changes seen in the upper arctic ocean circulation of the 1990's were mostly -- rather than trends caused by global warming.
in 2008, a peer-reviewed paper found -- this is a quote now, a doubling in know accumulation in the western an arctic peninsula since 1850. host: ok. let's go back to the guests. "u.s.a. today," car buyers are slugging at $4 gas. 16% both small and large. but "u.s.a. today" had on their editorial page says -- calling for us to tap our strategic petroleum reserve. what's your reaction to that? >> well, first of all, the strategic petroleum reserve is there for emergencies like katrina, for example. all of a sudden, we have our refineries going down, we have to go down and we have to use it. so that's what it's for. it's not for supply and demand. we can get our supply. we don't have to go to the reserve. we just have to start drilling
here in the united states and we won't have that problem. if you are to go to the reserve, it would be a very short period of time and there would be relief. they are speculating -- well, i won't use the time period because i've heard a couple of different ones but that's not what it's for. it's for a reserve for the emergency and if that should happen, we've got it. host: bakersfield, california. shawn is a independent. you're on. caller: i mean, how are you going to deny the fact that both of the sheets are melting. the habitat for the polar bears is disappearing rapidly. and even you just mentioned haney katrina and the entire situation was exacerbated by the fact that sea levels are higher than they were 100 years ago and how are you going to sit there and say that this is not taking place, that global warming is not taking place?
guest: well, first of all, let's take it one at a time. i've already answered the question in terms of the polar and the arctic and the an arctic. and so we have -- that's a factual response. but on polar bears, i just wonder if the man from bakersfield is aware that we had the total population in the 1960's was between 5,000 and 10,000. today, it's between 15,000 and 25,000. and furthermore, the canadian buy gist -- biologist said "of the 13 populations of polar bears in canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. they are not going extinct or even appearing to be affected at present. it's just silly to predict a demise of particular bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria." host: and a viewer who agrees with you says can the senator
talk about the warming throughout the solar system? it's the sun cycle, not us. there are no cars on mars. guest: i mentioned three of the real top scientists from u.k., from france and from is real. the one from -- israel and the one from israel came up with the ding -- while, i will reach. he is the one walking the streets before gleeble warming and all that from israel. after he looked at what happened to the science in ipcc, he came out and he said something that i thought was really pretty astounding. he said that it is the warming is -- i've got it in here somewhere be. but he said -- hold on. it's the sun. so there are a few scientists out there that are saying the sun tends to warm it up.
host: i want to bring you back into politics. what did senator olympia snow's announcement she wouldn't seek re-election? >> that was a disappointment. it's a tough state. i say that. on the other hand, the last election was susan collins out there. she won by a huge margin in the state. they understand a republican governor, i believe. so it's not just a solid democrat say it. my good democrat friends are all celebrating but i think republicans will have a good candidate. i don't think it's an automatic loss. it's going to be a tight race. host: and likewise, what does your neighboring state bob do if guest: bob has got a problem he spend us a his time in university since he left the senate. he's got to overcome that obstacle and nebraska is a
pretty fast growing republican population. host: your state is profiled on the front page of "the washington post." the headline "why look for change in an oklahoma town where nearly everyone lives the conservative life?" and this is a town of washington, oklahoma. do you know it? the point is simply about the people who live in your state and what's at stake for them in this election. so let me move to super tuesday. rick santorum is suggesting that you are backing his bid for the presidency. guest: no. i haven't heard him say that. i was a speaker at the opening day on the c pack. -- cpac. and i said since he had spoken right before me, i made the statement i know rick santorum. first of all, i did endorse his candidate as rick perry and it didn't work. and i did so mainly because of
his understanding of energy and the environment and all of that. rick has very similar views and i like him very much and i just wanted to clarify to them theatric, i know very well. i served with him in the house and we went to the senate on the same day. we have been in a bible study together each week for a long period of time. so i know him. i know his heart and then he says something, it comes from his heart. it's not an endorsement. he's just a very good friend. i do know this. he came to oklahoma and i wasn't there. i was in washington, but he had -- was expecting on a short notice, something like 200 or 300 people and he ended up -- ended up with well over 2,000 people showing up. so he's very popular in oklahoma and i anticipate he'll carry oklahoma. host: and when we move past this primary stage, is mitt romney the eventual nominee? what are his chances against president obama? guest: he is the more moderate of the four -- well, it's kind of hard. you can't measure ron paul that
way because his is not, you know, a liberal conservative dichotomy. what you would have is a mitt romney who is pretty moderate. he will pick up a lot of independent votes. and i think he'll probably do very well if he is the one. and i think those people who thing that this primary is hurting the republicans, look back hysterically. that's not what happened. that -- historically. that's not what happened. it energized the base. it's like the meeting in copenhagen. they all hated me. in this case, one thing they have in common is they all want to defeat obama. so you have an exercise base with four groups going with that ultimate goal. so i don't think it's going to hurt the republicans' chances. host: would you be happy with a mitt romney presidency? guest: as opposed to obama? yes. host: let's go back to call. tulsa, oklahoma.
frazier. guest: oh, that's my town. host: frazier, you're on the air, republican. guest: great. i want to thank the senator for his leadership and his service to the country. my service has to do with cap and trade. it seems inevitable to me and you were the leader in the fight to stop it. how did you do it? guest: well, i did it because as i started out this program, i said that i really believe back -- there's something to it when i found out there's a cost to it. that's when i started looking at the signs and i really mean it. our phone was ringing off the hook. so we started -- you can go back to my website and see this. we started about six years ago, accumulating the names of people who are calling us. we've got up to 400 scientists that called in. we posted it on our website. and i came convinced that they're cooking the signs on
this thing and everything fell into place, we've gone to the warming periods, the cooling periods, and it's all been cyclical. i know that there is -- as they started the hockey stick thing. they forgot about the medieval or the medieval warm period that is between 800 and 1,300. and then the little ice age were about 1,300 on and forward. so we've gone through these cycles. i've already mentioned two cycles, one going into about over a period of two centuries and the other over 100 years. so that's been there for a long period of time. all you have to do is go back -- look at "time" magazine, i say to my friend from tulsa. back in 1975, the front page of "time" magazine, another ice age is coming. we're all going to die. and then that same "time" magazine had the last polar bear stand on the last cube of ice
age and saying we're all going to dial. which way do you want to go? host: we have another caller and once again from oklahoma, this time the town of boswell. glenda. you're on the air. caller: yes. good morning, c-span. i am a christian conservative democrat. and i am going back in history. i am older than you. the poor has always been oppressed, especially in southeastern oklahoma. the g.o.p. has spent more money on mars. they have spent more money period. and the high gas prices is not because of obama. it's because the g.o.p. wants obama to look bad since the economy's coming up. also, i want to speak on the keystone pipeline. it's less than 10 miles from our house and it is pitiful.
do we want our waters in oklahoma messed up? why don't they stop? the greatest refineries are in tulsa. but they want to ship this to china. if the president can't stop this, then why do we elect a president? please answer my question. guest: well, i will. first of all, if you want to send it to china, then stop the pipeline down here because that's what the canadians are going to do. they've already said that and they could take it to the west coast of canada in -- and the chinese are happy to get it. you're wrong on that issue. when you talk about the amount of money that is spent, we have a president in obama and keep in mind, the president -- not many people understand this. they design their own budgets. not the house, democrats or republicans. it's the president. you'll take the total amount of deficit in the eight years of george w. bush, it was $2 trillion. that's a figure. that's all backed up.
no one can argue with that. if you take the deficit of obama, it's been a deficit of $5.3 trillion. that's more than all other presidents combined. and for them to try to continue this argument, this faulty flawed argument that we inherited this problem from bush when his deficit were one fifth the deficit of obama. so i think you're wrong in that and that's it for a timethat's with senator inhofe. his new book is called thethe greatest hoax. the global warming conspiracy threatens your future and is available wherever you buy books . >> we have a lot of discussion about the betting. i was not happy with the product you know, in the movie obviously you have a process that is ten weeks long that is distilled down to two hours. you know, out of necessity some of the time lines are reappraised. but is a two-story of what
happened. the question of the vetting, we get to the end of the process. senator mccain had determined who he wants to pick. we had the realization that we can't win with any of the candidates as displayed in the movie. it was an extraordinarily difficult set up a collection circumstances. we were going to be outbid by $200 million. the president, president bush, the work force approval rating was in the 30's. barack obama was speaking to clouds of hundreds of thousands in europe. there was a fervor for his candidacy on the part of the press and try to figure out how to win. on the person who so wish to take a look. >> brought of the moment? >> that moment friezes and so's -- slows down in my brain.
a couple of days at the jersey shore. i remember everything, every aspect of the moment. i could smell the smell of long beach island. the salt air. the cars in front of the house. i pick up the phone and called rick davis we should take a look at sarah palin. the vetting that was done, i said to read, is very important. rick was in charge of the bidding process. following a completely vetted. the four parcel that bet. you could do a documentary on this alone.
>> and going to bring you. congratulations. >> i do want to make the part about what we're talking about. i think a lot of context on this. the first part was the cash affirmation, the medical records and all the stuff. it was clear. the second part is depicted in the movie. we have a discussion, operationally inside the campaign. it will run. this is a real life is guided change. the third part was the questionnaire which was really the fitness. so what john mccain and sir palin's said to each other as announced in may. it's known to them. the questionnaire, the results of it, we didn't have the insight. obviously we will talk about that more. pr you can watch this and other